Krishak Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Beltukri vs The District Marketing Officer

1

CGHC010373742026 2026:CGHC:46031
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ARBR No. 67 of 2026
Krishak Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Beltukri Registration No. 42, A
Society Registered Under The Chhattisgarh Co-Operative Societies Act,
1960 And Having Its Registered Address At Beltukri, Tehsil Rajim,
District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh
Through Its Manager Shri Manoj Kumar Diwakar S/o Shri Kirtan Lal
Diwakar Aged About 43 Years, R/o Ward, No. 11, Barpara, Kataud,
Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, 495557.
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - The District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Cooperative
Marketing Federation Ltd. (CGMARKFED) Gariyaband Behind SBI Near
Tehsil District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. Email
[email protected]
2 - The District Nodal Officer Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit
Raipur G.E. Road Rajbandha, Maidan, Raipur Pin -492001, Chhattisgarh.
Email [email protected]
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Sudip Mallick, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 3 Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate, holding the brief
of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate.

2
Hon’ble Mr. Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice
Order on Board
30/10/2026
1. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 ( for short, the Act of 1996 ) requesting for
appointment of sole Arbitrator in terms of clause 13 of the
agreement dated 27.11.2025.
2. Mr. Sudip Mallick, learned counsel appearing for the applicant
draws attention to clause 13 of the agreement dated 27.11.2025,
which reads as under:
“
13- vkfcZVªs’ku % &
bl vuqca/k dh fdlh Hkh df.Mdk ls lacaf/kr fookn mRiUu gksus dh
fLFkfr esa fookn ds fu.kZ; gsrq ftys esa ftyk dysDVj dk fu.kZ;
vfUre gksxk tks mHk;i{kksa dks ekU; gksxkA dysDVj }kjk fn;s x;s
fu.kZ; dh vihy mHk;i{kksa }kjk lacaf/kr ftys ds laHkkxh; vk;qDr dks
dh tk ldsxhA ”
3. Mr. Mallick, therefore, submits that since there is an arbitration
clause in the agreement, an Arbitrator should be appointed in terms
of clause 13 to arbitrate the dispute that has arisen between the
parties.
4. In course of hearing, Mr. Mallick places on record a judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Bharat Udyog Ltd. v. Ambernath
Municipal Council through Commissioner & Another, in
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1127/2017, disposed of vide
judgment dated 24.03.2026. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble

3
Supreme Court took note of the arbitration clause referred to therein
and held that the same cannot be considered to be an arbitration
clause for appointment of Arbitrator.
5. For better appreciation, the relevant arbitration clause referred to in
the judgment of M/s. Bharat Udyog Ltd. (supra) is quoted
hereunder:
“ Clause 22: Disputes: In case of any dispute, the same shall
be referred to the Collector and his decision shall be final and
binding on the Agent and the Council. Appeal against the
decision of the Collector in case of any dispute shall lie first
before the Divisional Commissioner and finally before the
Government in Urban Development Department…. ”
6. Discussing the law on the point, Hon’ble Supreme Court at
paragraph 26(a) of the said judgment, held as under:
“26. In view of the above analysis, we are of the considered
opinion that the High Court has arrived at the right conclusion
on the basis of law and fact. While reiterating the decision of
the High Court, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in
the special leave petition for the following reasons:
a) Absence of a Valid Arbitration Agreement: There is no
written agreement between the parties to submit differences to
arbitration as required by Section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act,
1940. Specifically, Clause 20 relates to the position that the
parties are to maintain pending the disposal of a dispute
resolution. In other words, clause 20 prescribes a measure
that the parties would maintain pending resolution. However,
that by itself cannot be an arbitration clause. On the other
hand, Clause 22 is certainly not an arbitration agreement.”
7. On perusal of the arbitration clause and on a close reading of the
judgment in M/s. Bharat Udyog Ltd. (supra), I am of the

4
considered opinion that clause 13 of the agreement dated
27.11.2025 cannot be said to be an arbitration clause.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has
no grievance to adhere to the remedial measures under clause 13
available in the agreement dated 27.11.2025.
9. Mr. Harshal Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1
submits that without filing the statement of claim before the
Collector, who is competent to redress the grievance of the parties,
this arbitration request petition has been filed.
10. Ms. Seema Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No. 2 is present and supports the submission made by learned
counsel for the respondent No. 1.
11. In view of the ratio in the case of M/s. Bharat Udyog Ltd. (supra),
the application under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 is not
maintainable.
12. In view of the above, this Court disposes of this arbitration request
petition with an observation that the applicant, if so advised, may
avail the remedy available under clause 13 of the agreement dated
27.11.2025 referred to above for redressal of its grievances.
Sd/-
(Krushna Ram Mohapatra)
CHIEF JUSTICE

Amit
AMIT
KUMAR
DUBEY
Digitally signed
by AMIT KUMAR
DUBEY
Date: 2026.10.30
19:20:56 +0530